Discrimination's definition too broad

May 23, 2007

Last year in Washington, D.C., the district began imposing strict requirements on elderly drivers. Prior to license renewal, the Department of Motor Vehicles made elderly drivers take a road test and a written test, even if they had not been involved in an accident or ticketed. But after a huge outcry, the city government backed off. Age discrimination, voters screamed. And yet, one cannot ignore the fact that older drivers have been the cause of some pretty horrendous accidents. One of the most tragic occurred in 2003 when a car driven by an 86-year-old man plowed through a farmers market in California killing 10 people and injuring more than 70 others. Perhaps I'll feel differently about this in 30 years, but it seems that in this case, the definition of discrimination is written with too broad a stroke. Shouldn't such a charge be reserved for more egregious sins such as refusal to hire based on color, gender, sexual orientation and, yes, age? Wouldn't it be easier to claim discrimination if the government prohibited everyone over a specific age from driving or placed restrictions based solely on age? To require a motorist to prove that he or she is capable behind the wheel is just good common sense. It's mandatory for new drivers and people who have let their license expire. It's a couple of tests. And if the elderly fear they may not be able to pass the tests, then perhaps deep down inside they realize they should not be on the road. Many elderly drivers wisely place their own restrictions upon themselves - they only drive during the day and not during heavy traffic hours. They take right turns whenever possible, they park in a way that they can pull straight out. One 85-year-old Aberdeen woman voluntarily takes the driving test each time her license is up for renewal to prove to herself and her family that she is still competent behind the wheel. In rural South Dakota, the issue of older drivers is becoming a crucial one. We are an aging society living in what were once thriving villages. Our rural towns are shrinking at a rapid pace. Towns that used to have grocery stores, banks, auto repair, a town doctor, a pharmacy and post office now are lucky to have a tavern. The elderly have no choice but to travel to a larger town for services. It's no longer uncommon to have people live to be 100 years old or to still live in their own homes well into their 90s. People age 65 are still working full-time jobs, with no intention of retiring any time soon. But there is no question that, for most of us, our vision, reflexes and hearing diminish over time. The age at which this happens might vary from person to person, but it will happen. It's not inconceivable that drivers who have never been in an accident, never been ticketed or have not allowed their licenses to expire could go 50 years without ever having to take a driving test. Things have changed in the past 50 years. Cars are going faster, highway speeds have increased, there are many more cars, trucks, motor homes and motorcycles on the road. So perhaps setting a mandatory age in which drivers must take a road and written test is just good common sense. Because we're not just saving potential victims, we're saving our elderly neighbors as well. Imagine what life is like for that 86-year-old man who, four years ago, killed 10 people? What few years left on this earth for him must be a living hell. Gretchen Mayer, Mansfield, works at the American News and is a member of the American News Editorial Board. Her column appears occasionally on the Viewpoints Page. Write to her at the American News, P.O. Box 4430, Aberdeen, SD 57402, or e-mail americannews@aberdeennews.com. Gretchen Mayer